Senate version of HCR bill. Don't take ANYBODY'S word!

[Fire1]

Not MINE, not YOURS, not DEAN, NOT msnbc!! READ and decide for YOURSELF!! It may be lengthy but well worth the read!

http://stabenow.senate.gov/healthcare/Patient_protection_section.pdf

[MNDemNY]

1. Read it and weep.

K&R for openness. Do read it!!! Thanks.Do not believe the shilling!!! those trying to sell you on this shit pile either work in the industry, or are blind followers of the White House, and only want a "victory" they do not care that this is just a give-away to the Insurance Industry!!! Check out the Industry stocks , they are up today even though the market is way down. This is the sweetest of sweet heart deals!! Not what is NOT in the bill, such as the right to negotiate lower drug prices! This is a turd that can not be polished. KILL IT.

[Fire1]

4. I did. Doesn't sound too shabby to me. n/t

[MNDemNY]

7. So you are OK with a family of 4 with an income of 54,000,

being forced to purchase insurance at a price of 17,000 per year? your OK with that? and that is just the tip if the shit-berg!

[Fire1]

8. Exactly what paragraph is that in? eom

[MNDemNY]

11. Your the one shilling this bill.

if you dispute this, prove it wrong!!!

[RoyGBiv]

17. Extra exclamation marks ...

... do not make your point for you.

If you *read* the bill, you will find the part about subsidies.

You're parroting something you heard/read from health care reform critics, i.e. the people that don't want anything to pass.

[MNDemNY]

22. There are NO subsidies for income of 54,000.

[RoyGBiv]

50. Wrong ...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf

[MNDemNY]

71. Are you counting the 4000 deductible???

How about the co-pays over and above the deductible??

[RoyGBiv]

76. That's not a "deductible"

Get your terminology straight. And, yes, I'm counting it because that's what is left over after the subsidies.

Now, you said there were no subsidies. This shows you are incorrect.

Actually it shows Darcy Burner is incorrect, which is where you lifted your numbers, i.e. not by reading the bill or the CBO. You're simply parroting what someone else effectively told you.

The theme of this thread is "read it yourself." Why don't you do so?

[MNDemNY]

80. There is a $4000 deductible .

+ other out of pocket expenses. That is the FIRST $4000 of care. (excluding wellness care included in plan) but don't get sick.

[RoyGBiv]

84. No ...

That is not a deductible. That is the premium, which is what is left *after* the subsidies, an issue *you* raised that I now note you have completely sidestepped. Maybe you did read something.

In any case, read the report or read the bill or both. Until you can discuss this from an informed position, we have nothing else to say to each other.

Good day.

OnEdit: I do have one other thing to say.

In the last couple of days, some individuals who are approaching this issue from your position have excoriated those approaching from mine for "not listening" or "not understanding" and failing to engage you honestly with mutual respect ... or something along those lines.

I replied to one such commentary that the observer was correct. However, for *me* to approach a person in such a manner would require the other person to do the same. You do not get your own set of facts. You do not get to talk over me or attempt to belittle me when I have not done so to you. If I seek to correct a basic error in your interpretation by highlighting an objective fact, you do not get to ignore that fact. The same also applies to me.

So here are two basic facts I've mentioned to you. There are subsidies. The $4,000 amount in the example you lifted from OpenLeft in reality refers to the premium amount, which, according to the CBO report, is some 1/3 less than the current average for the same family in the current market.

Deal with those facts or don't, but if you don't, do not expect me to listen to you on anything else regarding this matter.

[MNDemNY]

87. Policies have a $4000 deductible for a family of 4

I see that the number you cite is Not a deductible. I concede that there IS a subsidy for that family with 54000 income.( I would edit that post but It is too late.BUT IN CAPS I CONCEDE THAT POINT, BUT I STAND BE THE STATEMENT THAT THERE IS A $ 4000 DEDUCTIBLE OVER AND ABOVE ANY PREMIUM PAID.

[RoyGBiv]

89. Provide a citation n/t

[MNDemNY]

90. page 109 line 21 of the Senate bill.

The full bill link to pdf of full bill is down thread.

[RoyGBiv]

93. Okay ...

You're still wrong.

The example you're using refers to a family of four acquiring coverage on the individual market.

The section you are citing refers to the maximum deductible allowable for employer sponsored plans. This is language added to address situations -- common situations -- where an employer offers insurance but with plans that carry exorbitant deductibles.

[MNDemNY]

95. it refers to the level of coverage assumed in the "exchange" as well.

Sorry, but the $4000 deductible is a very real part of mandated plan purchased through the exchange.

[RoyGBiv]

96. Please provide a citation ...

The citation you provided refers to employer plans.

[truedelphi]

98. Thank you! n/t

[truedelphi]

97. Don't you get it? You can just forget about those fancy trips to Europe, and the cruises.

The same way that our fine Senators make do when they need some expensive operation!

[Fire1]

25. You beat me to it! Thanks. n/t

[bornskeptic]

63. I just plugged it in the calculator, which says that for a family of four with an income of $54000

the total premium would be $9435, but after receiving their subsidy, they would only have to pay $4251 themselves. Maybe you're quoting what the family's cost would be if no reform passes. $17000 is not an unreasonable estimate of that.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

edited to add calculator link

[MNDemNY]

70. OOps YOU forgot a little something!!!!

$4000 deductible, plus up to 4000 out of pocket over and above the deductible.( co-pays and the like.)so could that family of four with a (pre-tax) income of 54,000 really afford , using your numbers, 12,051 That's $1000 per month!!! on top of Rent , food, utilities!!!! Hell let's say the only have to pay the deductible. (we'll assume they do not get sick, just routine stuff) $4000 + $4251=8251/12=$687 per month. NOW THATS AFFORDABLE !!!!!! On a take home of approx $3200 per month.???What do you think , folks good deal????

[closeupready]

72. If real numbers are close to even HALF that, people are going to get very angry.

And rightfully so.

[MNDemNY]

75. The $687 per month real cost to a family of 4 is LOW estimate.

That is assuming little use. Get sick , could be 4000 more per annum.

[MNDemNY]

77. Hell the 4000 deductible is enough to bankrupt alot of folks.

And unless you are poor enough to get medicaid, this is the MINIMUM YOU WILL BE ON THE HOOK TO PAY !!!Even if you qualify for 100% subsidy!(put not medicaid.) How about them apples??? Yippee!!!Your too poor to pay ANY of the premium, but you still must pay the FIRST 4000 if you get sick. This is truly "change we can believe in, cough, gag, phiiit!."

[closeupready]

82. OMG, so you mean, low-income people have to shell out $4,000 of their own money for medical exp.

expenses before their coverage kicks in?

[MNDemNY]

85. Medical costs other than the "wellness care included in policy."

Yup if they need to make claims other than routine checkups and such there is a 4000 per year deductible. and other potential "out of pocket expenses, I believed capped at 5000 per year in this scenario. Affordable to some, I'm sure most in congress see it as no biggie, but in the real world???

[RoyGBiv]

78. The real numbers aren't n/t

[closeupready]

81. And you believe the real numbers are what?

People have to budget, and for that they assign real numbers, so what would the hypothetical family in MNDEMNY's example need to assign as part of their outgoing dollar?

[Scarsdale Vibe]

46. According to CBO you have more than quadrupled the premium cost to the family.

In 2016, if the Senate bill passes, a family of 4 with an income of $54,000 will pay $4,000 in premiums and will be capped at $5,000 for out-of-pocket costs, the remaining $10,000 in premiums would be subsidized by the government. So, in the absolute worst-case scenario the family would pay $9,000 a year if all four members of the family came down with diseases that cost millions to treat.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf

In addition, the plans available to the family in the exchange will be regulated by the HHS, and they can be decertified for raising premiums excessively, not meeting benefit guidelines, or rescission.

[MNDemNY]

79. Using your numbers, that same family could pay 9000 for 5000 of health care.

$4000 deductible, + 1000 in copays. +4000 premium.

[enlightenment]

91. I don't see anything in the CBO document that says 'capped'

in reference to the out-of-pocket (or, as they term it, 'cost sharing') costs. The word they use is 'average'. Where are you getting 'capped'?

[debbierlus]

10. THIS ISN'T THE WHOLE BILL - it is a summary bill put out by the Senate - it is a propaganda piece

[Fire1]

19. How can it be a propaganda piece? PEOPLE CAN READ!!

AND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!!!! We're not ALL sheep!!

[MNDemNY]

27. They should read the whole thing, not bits and pieces.

[Fire1]

34. The essential parts of the bill relevant to all segments of the

population are included in this summary.

[MNDemNY]

38. Put out by someone shilling for the bill to pass. you know, like a commercial;!!!

[Fire1]

41. Sorry but I read and comprehend very well. If you want to call

this propaganda, so be it.

[closeupready]

2. Yeah, because God knows, our Senators won't actually read it, either.

n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

3. There doesn't seem to be a section covering Corporate Welfare payments to fat CEO's and investors..

I've followed the discussion here, and have been told that it is a corporate give away that robs me and my children of our money and our lives.

I'll get back when I find the relevant sections.

[debbierlus]

5. This is a summary bill, not the bill

[Fire1]

14. This is much easier to read and not nearly as long. n/t

[MNDemNY]

29. Nor as complete, and this is put out to Push the bill.

[Fire1]

And from what I've read I see nothing wrong with that or the bill.

[MNDemNY]

36. You're reading a "puff' peice to push the bill, are you nutz?

[Fire1]

47. Why do you not trust people to read and decide for

themselves?? If you naysayers are correct, it will not be obstructed by "puff." Whether it's public option or universal we will read some form of legislation but because this is not what YOU want, it's a "puff" piece or propaganda.

[closeupready]

6. Listen up - just read the very first two provisions.

Both are full of loopholes, and I'm sure the rest of it is, as well.

For example, Section 2711 prohibits annual limits on the dollar value of benefits WHICH ARE "UNREASONABLE". :eyes:

Section 2712 prohibits rescission of coverage "except in instances of fraud or misrepresentation."

Is this standard? Who judges what "unreasonable" and "misrepresent" mean? The insurance companies?

[MNDemNY]

9. Yup, complete cupitulation to the whims of the industry.

Shit sandwich with rotted mayo.

[Fire1]

12. misrepresentation is self explanatory; i.e. if you LIE about

your age, children's age, gender, etc. etc.

[closeupready]

15. The legislation does NOT say that.

n/t

[closeupready]

16. If you saw Sicko, you know that some people who fail to inform about yeast infections are

currently having their coverage rescinded because of misrepresentation about pre-existing conditions - are you honestly comfortable leaving terms like 'misrepresentation' ambiguous as it is here?

[Fire1]

21. If you read closely, it says CANNOT BE RESCINDED for

pre-existing conditions!! So, WHY would one have to LIE in the first place?

[closeupready]

32. You answer that - you seem to support this language

If people will not have to lie then there will be no misrepresentations, will there? Therefore, no provision in favor of the insurance companies needs to be federalized in this law.

Do you agree?

[Fire1]

42. At least they will not have to lie about pre existing conditions.

I think that is the major point here.

[Prism]

40. You're being woefully naive

Insurance companies have, as a matter of course, been using the "misrepresent" clause for nefarious purposes for ages.

There are countless stories of people being denied coverage for not disclosing conditions they had no idea they had. It's kind of a threefer. You discover you have a condition that needs medical treatment, you're then denied the coverage you need to treat it, and the insurance company gets to call you a big fat liar.

It's a lot of fun for them.

The insurance companies do this all the time.

[Fire1]

43. What part of "cannot be rescinded" do you not understand?

[closeupready]

44. What part of 'cannot be rescinded except in cases of misrepresentation' do YOU not understand?

??

[Prism]

49. I think you need to read what I said again

We're talking about how insurance companies have long interpreted misrepresentation.

[Fire1]

54. They could continue that SAME misrepresentation with a

public option.

[Prism]

62. Which has what to do with it?

Unless you believe my only problem with the bill is the lack of public option. No, there are many, many things wrong with this bill.

[Fire1]

53. If that's the case then that same clause could be put in the

public option coverage. If a patient finds out they have a pre-existing condition, according to this bill, they still get coverage OR their coverage cannot be rescinded, if they already had coverage. If this was violated by an insurance co. there is always legal recourse. The whole point of having health care reform is to put a lid on what's BEEN happening.

[closeupready]

55. What are you talking about when you claim there is a "public option"?

There is no public option.

[Fire1]

57. IF, there was a public option. eom

[closeupready]

13. Section 2719 - Appeals Process.

"Health insurers will be required to implement an effective process for appeals of coverage determinations and claims."

:eyes: And Joe Lieberman will be the judge of whether or not the process in question is effective. :sarcasm:

[MNDemNY]

33. But joe will not be mean!

[Fire1]

48. Get real. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

74. Bingo!

[MNDemNY]

18. FULL PDF OF BILL HERE

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. Wow I didn't realize that the Senate bill was only 56 pages long!

[Fire1]

23. Condensed version from my senator. n/t

[MNDemNY]

31. "Your Senator, who is shilling for the bill.

What part of "propaganda" do you not comprehend??

[Fire1]

39. Then I'll put it like this. I trust my senator and after reading this

I'll have to rewrite and submit my e-mail to Congressman Conyers cause obviously HE hasn't read it, either.

[MNDemNY]

24. It's not, silly.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. Guess that little sarcasm thingie IS really necessary sometimes... n/t

[Fire1]

28. Especially after the misrepresentations I've seen lately. eom

[MNDemNY]

30. Sorry I should have seen who you were.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. Ouch!

I've been :nuke:

I hate when that happens.

[MNDemNY]

37. No bomb intended.

Thought I was responding to fire1

[Sebastian Doyle]

45. OK, so.....

Not MINE, not YOURS, not DEAN, NOT msnbc!! READ and decide for YOURSELF!!

I shouldn't take Howard Dean's word, or MSNBC's. But I should take Debbie DLC Stabenow's word from a summary?

Uh, no thanks.

The bill is SHIT. It became SHIT the minute they stripped the public option out of it. That's really all that needs to be said.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

52. Dean supports the bill.

If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

This is Dean's op-ed in the Washington Post today, and the prudent purchasing that he wants in order to support the bill is already in it on pages 131-144. John Kerry said today, "The prudent purchasing provisions in the Senate health bill will lower costs and increase affordable options for consumers. It’s strong language that will allow the exchange to deliver competitive prices and offer high quality care, and I’m thrilled to see national reform honor the best innovations already succeeding in Massachusetts. "

Maybe Dean thought those provisions had been stripped from the bill, but they haven't. So, if he's true to his word, he actually supports passing the bill in its current form.

[Sebastian Doyle]

56. No he does not.

He supports Kerry's amendment. Which is NOT part of the current shit bill. And is unlikely to become part of it.

[freddie mertz]

51. False advertising. This is not the text of the bill.

It is a selective summary posted by a Senator's staff.

[Fire1]

58. Then perhaps you can enlighten us as to where we might

find the "full text of the bill."

[freddie mertz]

59. You made the claim, not me. It's your responsibility to tell the truth.

Besides, even if we got a full text, its hardly going to be the final version.

It would be outdated before the post came up.

They are still voting amendments and sneaking stuff into it I am sure.

That's the stuff to look out for, the stuff that sneaks in in the middle of the night.

[Fire1]

60. YOU made the claim that this was false advertising. I didn't

claim ANYTHING! So, it's up to YOU to provide the "full text," as you say. This summary was not written by me! I merely provided what was available. Furthermore, since this is not the final version, anyway, why are people so desparate to take it at face value?
How can folks knock something down that hasn't been completed?

[freddie mertz]

61. I clicked on your link. Says right there.

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Section‐by‐Section Analysis


It's an ANALYSIS of the bill, not the bill itself.

[Fire1]

65. Absolutely! Never said it wasn't. It is a summary as I described

several times upthread.

[freddie mertz]

67. I was responding to your (unedited) OP.

I saw only much later that you got called on it and admitted the thing was not as suggested in the OP, the actual Senate bill.

[Fire1]

68. Oh, pardon me. Coming from a senator's office I incorrectly

assumed it was credible information. Silly me.

[freddie mertz]

69. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I have no idea.

I am against the bill myself, and though I understand and respect other opinions, I am very angered by the WH attack on Dean and the corresponding attacks on people like myself here.

Sorry if that came your way unfairly.

[kiva]

64. You really should ask that this thread be locked.

Several people have proven that this is not the "Senate version of HCR bill" as you claim in the subject line of your OP. Your insistence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary suggests that either you don't understand the definition of propaganda or that you have another reason for insisting this is the bill.

[Fire1]

66. I've said repeatedly that this is a condensed version of the HCR

Bill. My thread should be locked for trying to get people to read a summary or condensed version of the hcr bill and judge for themselves if it is in their best interest? From what I also understand this is about as close as you're going to get until it's finalized. There should always be as much information as possible presented to citizens, pro and con. Then, let THEM decide.

There's been thread after thread trashing the current tentative bill of which NONE of us has seen. Information based on news reports usually characterized as erroneous along with Conyers and Dean and it's questionable if THEY have actually SEEN even a summary. All they heard was public option stripped from the bill, and it's been negative, negative, negative, ever since.

If the mods want to lock it, they don't need you to determine that for them. They'll do it without your recommendation or consent.

[kiva]

92. Read my post again. I did not say that the mods should lock

this thread, I said I thought you should ask them to lock it. Your subject line is misleading and several people here have explained that this is nothing more than a propaganda piece...but it's your choice, so have fun.

[grahamhgreen]

73. "Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions." - How this will be gamed by big insurance lawyers

"Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. Prohibits all plans from rescinding coverage except in instances of fraud or misrepresentation."

What big insurance will do is claim that when you filled out your insurance form and failed to inform them of the time you used an acne drug when you were a teen (because you honestly forgot) - THAT YOU COMMITTED FRAUD AND YOUR INSURANCE IS NEGATED - THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO NOW.

EtC., etc., through the whole bill.

In the end, it will be you vs. a team of industry lawyers making more money per year than you will see in your life, with more money than God at their disposal - good luck.

In the meantime, as the trial drags on for years, you have died of cancer.

DON'T BE FOOLED AND SUPPORT THIS CRAPSURANCE BILL!

[closeupready]

83. Michael Moore's "Sicko" demonstrated that this is how things work already.

With a loophole like this, there is no incentive whatsoever to stop doing it.

[Fire1]

86. As far as that's concerned ANY amendment to ANY reform

proposal is a crap shoot. Since insurance companies have all the money, they consequently have all the power. Now what.

[grahamhgreen]

100. Make for profit insurance illegal for basic coverage as it is in civilized countries.

And then - medicare for all.

The only way we can stand up to big insurance is as a united party, not as individuals.

[TheKentuckian]

88. This seems like an obvious loophole

If you were really ending rescissions there would be no actual fraud possible, in my opinion, because if you did it wouldn't really matter anyway.

All I see is

Closed exchanges
retain anti-trust
keep caps
No rescissions except for the same reasons they based them on before
no cost controls
no competition
mandated use of their service

and we get the majority but not close to all of the uninsured some coverage that they may or may not be able to afford to use for a hundred billion or so a year.

Sure, any reform might have a way around it if you leave big insurance with the ball in their hand but this is a four lane highway. Wouldn't you prefer a reasonable effort?

[Garam_Masala]

94. This bill fails for one glaring simple reason!

There are NO RESTRICTIONS on what the private insurers can charge for
monthly premiums! It is easy to stipulate such things as "No limits on
on lifetime amount paid by insurance".

But without any restrictions on what the for profit private insurer can
charge you it is pure hogwash, meaningless, and hollow.

[grahamhgreen]

101. + a billion or so!

[Bluenorthwest]

99. That is not the bill

it is an 'analysis' of the bill. Which means in short that what you are promoting as the bill itself is not the bill itself at all.